RP Listener Forum

RAFT  »   Climate Change
Post to this Topic
R_P
May 25, 2016 - 11:50am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
(...) What happens next no one really knows. (...) Whether that will be for the worse or the better, only the future will tell. (...)
 
I think we have a pretty good idea in some areas (there will always be details that are unknown). The future is already here. There are plenty of other examples (see parts of India at the moment), and the frequency of such related events will only go up. At some point your kids (and if you're still around) will likely have to consider it the new normal. It will be costly, both in terms of (human) life and economic resources.
 
NoEnzLefttoSplit
May 25, 2016 - 11:38am

 kurtster wrote:

Thanks, seriously.  I see that China is double the US in gross output and using your other chart, the US percap dropped from 17.0 to 16.4 in one year.  That's roughly - 5 % ?  Meanwhile in the same time China has gone up from 6.7 to 7.1.  That's roughly + 6 %, maybe a tad more.  You might conclude on a percap basis the US and China cancel each other, but the gross tons say otherwise.

But since we are past the point of no return, why worry anymore, eh ?  {#Wink} 

 
The table from the World Bank covers the period 2011 to 2015 so you can't derive the annual deltas that clearly from the data. The main point is WE ARE ALL pumping out the CO2 at an amazing rate. From a geological perspective it is the equivalent of an explosion. 
What happens next no one really knows. The world has certainly seen much greater calamities, just we weren't around for most of them. There have been at least five mass extinctions in the past. We are currently the cause of the sixth, which is a bit sobering. Personally I am not too alarmist about it. But I am sure we have changed the pattern of things. Whether that will be for the worse or the better, only the future will tell. It certainly can't be a good thing to put environments under such stress. If some other unexpected event came along right now that might stuff things up in major fashion. The rise of the mammals was due to precisely that kind of contingency. I'd be really bummed if we died out and earthworms took over.

But the Earth itself doesn't give a shit. The issue is merely what sort of planet do we want to live on. Do we want a living Great Barrier Reef and the oceans full of fish? Or are we going to be happy with factory grown food and dependence on large corporations to feed us? Its all just a question of choice. Right now, we still have one. But we are playing our trump cards very quickly. Once they're gone, they're gone.

But, if we make some small concessions now, we might keep a winning hand. That's all it comes down to. And we are not talking of making big concessions. As an analogy, since the ban on whaling took effect the population of Southern Right whales has rebounded to the same level it was out prior to whaling. Things like that make me really optimistic. There's a lot of really good new technology out there. I reckon we can do it. Just we have to do it.
 
kurtster  (ymmv)
May 25, 2016 - 11:12am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Your wish is my command:


(legend: totals on the left, per capita on the right) 

Australia is the worst. Must be the Koalas.
 
Thanks, seriously.  I see that China is double the US in gross output and using your other chart, the US percap dropped from 17.0 to 16.4 in one year.  That's roughly - 5 % ?  Meanwhile in the same time China has gone up from 6.7 to 7.1.  That's roughly + 6 %, maybe a tad more.  You might conclude on a percap basis the US and China cancel each other, but the gross tons say otherwise.

But since we are past the point of no return, why worry anymore, eh ?  {#Wink} 
 
NoEnzLefttoSplit
May 25, 2016 - 10:54am

 kurtster wrote:
 R_P wrote:


That is a nice chart and all but it lumps everything from 1970 to 2013 into one basket.  How about a chart showing the current measurements for just 2013 say.  I bet the chart would look much different, because the point is how much the US has lowered its output versus the rise of other countries.

 
Your wish is my command:


(legend: totals on the left, per capita on the right) 

Australia is the worst. Must be the Koalas.

 
R_P
May 25, 2016 - 10:36am

 kurtster wrote:
So it's all the USA's fault.  The evil USA is responsible for the impending toasting to a crisp, all life on this planet.  It must pay for its sins and bankrupt itself to make restitution to the rest of the world.  What it has done to clean up itself is simply a drop in the ocean, not even worthy of acknowledgement.

So if you could have your way and make the USA disappear from existence, you think that it will be more than enough to reverse the danger and make a real end to the crisis in reach.  You may be right.  Make it so.
 
{#Boohoo}
You either can't read or think. And as expected, no data.
 
kurtster  (ymmv)
May 25, 2016 - 8:37am

 R_P wrote:

The point was to show which countries/parts of the world have contributed the most to the current problem (there's data that goes back much further). Those top countries should have a clear incentive, driven by the historical data, to both lower their output and to search for a solution to the problem, which they have helped create themselves (in some part by the funding/lobbying of the denial industry which prevented, and in some cases still tries to prevent, action). And not just for CO2 either.

You can bet all you want, but without providing the data yourself, it just remains another one of your doubtful claims/dodges that still fails to refute the main argument above.

Cf.:
"Let me find a year or two where the temperature didn't go up, while ignoring the larger trend, so I can claim there's actually global cooling or it has stopped warming altogether. Hey presto!"
"Ok, so I've cut my smoking by 10 cigarettes a day out of a total of 50, so clearly I'm no longer responsible for any disease that might show up."


 
So it's all the USA's fault.  The evil USA is responsible for the impending toasting to a crisp, all life on this planet.  It must pay for its sins and bankrupt itself to make restitution to the rest of the world.  What it has done to clean up itself is simply a drop in the ocean, not even worthy of acknowledgement.

So if you could have your way and make the USA disappear from existence, you think that it will be more than enough to reverse the danger and make a real end to the crisis in reach.  You may be right.  Make it so.
 
porphyrius
May 25, 2016 - 1:45am

 R_P wrote:

The point was to show which countries/parts of the world have contributed the most to the current problem (there's data that goes back much further). Those top countries should have a clear incentive, driven by the historical data, to both lower their output and to search for a solution to the problem, which they have helped create themselves (in some part by the funding/lobbying of the denial industry which prevented, and in some cases still tries to prevent, action). And not just for CO2 either.

You can bet all you want, but without providing the data yourself, it just remains another one of your doubtful claims/dodges that still fails to refute the main argument above.

Cf.:
"Let me find a year or two where the temperature didn't go up, while ignoring the larger trend, so I can claim there's actually global cooling or it has stopped warming altogether. Hey presto!"
"Ok, so I've cut my smoking by 10 cigarettes a day out of a total of 50, so clearly I'm no longer responsible for any disease that might show up."

 
OK. Let's refute the main argument, which appears to be lack of incentive to change the problem, fueled by a denial industry. Help me out here, cause I'm losing touch reality with every step.....

http://conservativevideos.com/what-does-science-really-say-about-climate-change/

 




 
R_P
May 24, 2016 - 7:28am

 kurtster wrote:
That is a nice chart and all but it lumps everything from 1970 to 2013 into one basket.  How about a chart showing the current measurements for just 2013 say.  I bet the chart would look much different, because the point is how much the US has lowered its output versus the rise of other countries.
 
The point was to show which countries/parts of the world have contributed the most to the current problem (there's data that goes back much further). Those top countries should have a clear incentive, driven by the historical data, to both lower their output and to search for a solution to the problem, which they have helped create themselves (in some part by the funding/lobbying of the denial industry which prevented, and in some cases still tries to prevent, action). And not just for CO2 either.

You can bet all you want, but without providing the data yourself, it just remains another one of your doubtful claims/dodges that still fails to refute the main argument above.

Cf.:
"Let me find a year or two where the temperature didn't go up, while ignoring the larger trend, so I can claim there's actually global cooling or it has stopped warming altogether. Hey presto!"
"Ok, so I've cut my smoking by 10 cigarettes a day out of a total of 50, so clearly I'm no longer responsible for any disease that might show up."
 
kurtster  (ymmv)
May 24, 2016 - 6:47am

 R_P wrote:


That is a nice chart and all but it lumps everything from 1970 to 2013 into one basket.  How about a chart showing the current measurements for just 2013 say.  I bet the chart would look much different, because the point is how much the US has lowered its output versus the rise of other countries.
 
miamizsun  ((3261.3 Miles SE of RP))
May 24, 2016 - 5:33am

the world needs a lot more energy

this (access to affordable abundant energy) lifts people out of poverty

it also curbs population

this stuff is very easy to observe and there are truck loads of data pointing this out (i've posted about it before)

so if we think that the current process of producing energy is causing an issue via carbon dioxide how do we scale up production in a manner that minimizes/stabilizes/reduces it?

conservation and efficiency are good ideas but we need something to light up the planet asap

solar, tidal and wind aren't there and they have challenges, like storage, consistency, etc.

nuclear is clearly able to meet the challenge until other tech could become viable on the scale we need, but ignorance and corruption, both politically and socially are willing to use force (directly or indirectly) to hold society back

how do we use a political system to incentivize science to produce something viable?

if there was an incentive in place to encourage a manhattan type project for reactor design and implementation we might see some progress to solve this problem

financial is the easy answer here but we'd still have to deal with stifling and deleterious regulation

the sooner we free ourselves from harmful political beliefs and let science work, the sooner we can solve this issue

regards


 
sirdroseph  (Yes)
May 24, 2016 - 2:29am

 haresfur wrote:

I'm sure that many of the people who argued against global climate change will now argue that we don't need to do anything since we've already f'ed ourselves.

 
Regardless of what one does with this information, is this still not a fact?  The only way we could pull ourselves out of this is if every nation on the planet immediately took drastic measures of rewinding modern society while fully converting to renewable energy sources.  This has to be done by every individual on a global scale. Not happening. This is not a call to do nothing, just that climate change is not a national issue, it is a global issue and pointing fingers at one nation or culture is missing the point completely.


 
R_P
May 23, 2016 - 11:00pm

 kurtster wrote:
But CO2 is all you guys really care about.  (...) But again, all you guys care about is CO2.  And in per capita numbers, the US looks bad to this day.

But go and look who has the highest numbers.  Why its the Muslim nations of the Middle East.  They get a pass, cuz you guys give Muslims a pass on everything. 

Straw, straw, straw.

What matters to the composition of the atmosphere is obviously the total amount of CO2 that has been and continues to get added. So all your "per capita", woe-is-me-tears are rather pointless. {#Boohoo}

As for trying to get "Muslim nations" and "Muslims" involved on the basis of "per capita" (and passing off yet more straw), the following should make things a bit clearer, especially in relation to the previous sentence. You still with me, bub?

So apparently Qatar has the highest emissions per capita, but guess what, they're not even in the list above. However the UAE (last) and Saudi Arabia (among the highest p.c.) are, and you can compare them to the top 5...

Furthermore, for the lulz, your rabid Islamophobia, and general fear of immigrants, let's look at the "capita" or "Muslims" in these officially Islamic countries:
The number of people in Qatar fluctuates considerably depending on the season, since the country relies heavily on migrant labour. In 2013, Qatar's total population was 1.8 million, of which 278,000 were Qatari citizens (13 percent) and 1.5 million were expatriates. Non-Arab foreigners make up the vast majority of Qatar's population; Indians are the largest community, numbering 545,000 in 2013, followed by 341,000 Nepalis, 185,000 Filipinos, 137,000 Bangladeshis, 100,000 Sri Lankans and 90,000 Pakistanis among many other nationalities.

Sunni Islam is Qatar's predominant religion and enjoys official status.Most Qatari citizens belong to the Salafi Muslim movement of Sunni Islam, with about 5% percent adhering to Shia Islam. According to the 2004 census, 71.5% of the population are Sunni Muslims and about 5% are Shia Muslims, 8.5% are foreigner Christians and 10% are "other" foreigner religions. Sharia law is the main source of Qatari legislation according to Qatar's Constitution.

In 2010, the religious affiliation in the country was estimated by the Pew Forum as 67.7% Muslim, 13.8% Christian, 13.8% Hindu and 3.1% Buddhist. Other religions and religiously unaffiliated people accounted for the remaining 1.6%.

The Christian population is composed almost entirely of foreigners; a 2015 study estimates a mere 200 Muslim converts to Christianity. Since 2008, Christians have been allowed to build churches on ground donated by the government, though foreign missionary activity is officially discouraged. Active churches include the Mar Thoma Church, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, the Roman Catholic Our Lady of the Rosary, the Anglican Church of the Epiphany.

There are also two Mormon wards.

Despite hosting significant Hindu and Buddhist populations, neither religious group has an official place of worship.
The demography of the UAE is extremely diverse. In 2010, the UAE's population was estimated to be 8,264,070, of whom only 13% were UAE nationals or Emiratis,while the majority of the population were expatriates. The country's net migration rate stands at 21.71, the world's highest.

Islam is the largest and the official state religion of the UAE. The government follows a policy of tolerance toward other religions and rarely interferes in the activities of non-Muslims. By the same token, non-Muslims are expected to avoid interfering in Islamic religious matters or the Islamic upbringing of Muslims.

The government imposes restrictions on spreading other religions through any form of media as it is considered a form of proselytizing. There are approximately 31 churches throughout the country, one Hindu temple in the region of Bur Dubai, one Sikh Gurudwara in Jebel Ali and also a Buddhist temple in Al Garhoud.
As is well-known, they use lots of cheap (and abused) labour to get menial things done (aside from Western expatriates for other skills).

So, in conclusion, by all means, let's focus some more on those damned Muslims, while desperately trying to ignore the elephants in the room.

I think most people have no trouble understanding that there are other greenhouse gases involved in anthropogenic climate disruption.
 
ErikX
May 23, 2016 - 9:55pm

 kurtster wrote:

Yep.  By your chart, the US has reduced its emissions of CO2 since 1981 to 2011 by 15% and in the same time China has gone up 400%.  I bet if we had more recent figures the US is prolly down 25% while China is up 600%.   But this is in per capita.  How about gross tonnes by nation ?  And this is only CO2.

But CO2 is all you guys really care about.  Back in the 50's and 60's in California, I remember smog so thick that the visibility was less than a quarter mile in LA and SF.  It hurt to breathe when you went outdoors.  That is long gone, but its not CO2 so that doesn't matter, right ?  But its ok for China to have smog the same or worse today.  So bad they had to shut down industry for a month in advance of the Olympics in order to make it safe to run the Olympics.  But again, all you guys care about is CO2.  And in per capita numbers, the US looks bad to this day.

But go and look who has the highest numbers.  Why its the Muslim nations of the Middle East.  They get a pass, cuz you guys give Muslims a pass on everything.

 
China is adding millions to its consumer middle class monthly. More cars more manufacuring. And China is way ahead of the US on solar research and development. Their govt subsidies are massive compared to ours. Theyll own the future of solar. 
Smog would still be a problem in CA if the Republicans had their way. They voted against requiring catalyst converters on all cars.  


 
kurtster  (ymmv)
May 23, 2016 - 9:29pm

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Yep.  By your chart, the US has reduced its emissions of CO2 since 1981 to 2011 by 15% and in the same time China has gone up 400%.  I bet if we had more recent figures the US is prolly down 25% while China is up 600%.   But this is in per capita.  How about gross tonnes by nation ?  And this is only CO2.

But CO2 is all you guys really care about.  Back in the 50's and 60's in California, I remember smog so thick that the visibility was less than a quarter mile in LA and SF.  It hurt to breathe when you went outdoors.  That is long gone, but its not CO2 so that doesn't matter, right ?  But its ok for China to have smog the same or worse today.  So bad they had to shut down industry for a month in advance of the Olympics in order to make it safe to run the Olympics.  But again, all you guys care about is CO2.  And in per capita numbers, the US looks bad to this day.

But go and look who has the highest numbers.  Why its the Muslim nations of the Middle East.  They get a pass, cuz you guys give Muslims a pass on everything.


 
NoEnzLefttoSplit
May 23, 2016 - 8:47pm

 kurtster wrote:

What difference does it make ?  We're (the USA) broke and can't do shit about it.  The USA has already cleaned up its act.  The rest of the world ain't doin shit about it. Get over it.

 

 
Are you serious?
 
ErikX
May 23, 2016 - 8:39pm

 kurtster wrote:

What difference does it make ?  We're (the USA) broke and can't do shit about it.  The USA has already cleaned up its act.  The rest of the world ain't doin shit about it. Get over it.

 

 
lol. We never would have been first on the moon or built the interstate or won WW2 with that attitude when the top tax rate on the rich was 90%. Today's spoiled rich are now whining about 39% ......so have to hide trillions in offshore banks.  
 
R_P
May 23, 2016 - 5:59pm

 kurtster wrote:
What difference does it make ?  We're (the USA) broke and can't do shit about it.  The USA has already cleaned up its act.  The rest of the world ain't doin shit about it. Get over it. 

Ye olde Trumpist once again points to others while shirking "personal" responsibility, part 91,434.

Lie 1: Not broke enough apparently to spend trillions on new nukes in the next couple of decennia, aside from other killer gadgets, and annual (increasing) war budgets.

Lie 2: Meeting a (soft) target isn't the same as cleaning up your act. Emissions went down along with the economy, but with some recovery emissions are also rising again at least on one measure. We can also talk about outsourcing pollution (along with jobs) to places with fewer environmental regulations. Or historical industrial contribution to CO2 content in the atmosphere. Yes, all discussed before, but deniers will stay deniers (with fiery pants on fire) as pointed out earlier.

Lie 3: The rest of the world is a much bigger and diverse place than you could possibly fathom.
 
kurtster  (ymmv)
May 23, 2016 - 5:21pm

 R_P wrote:

Some have already used fatalism as an argument in one form or another. Still there are various degrees of getting effed, from mildly to severely, as well as slowly to quickly.

 
What difference does it make ?  We're (the USA) broke and can't do shit about it.  The USA has already cleaned up its act.  The rest of the world ain't doin shit about it. Get over it.

 
 
Red_Dragon  (Rethuglican Jesusland)
May 23, 2016 - 4:21pm

 haresfur wrote:

I'm sure that many of the people who argued against global climate change will now argue that we don't need to do anything since we've already f'ed ourselves.

 
Their logic would be flawless, of course.
 
R_P
May 23, 2016 - 4:21pm

 haresfur wrote:
I'm sure that many of the people who argued against global climate change will now argue that we don't need to do anything since we've already f'ed ourselves.
 
Some have already used fatalism as an argument in one form or another. Still there are various degrees of getting effed, from mildly to severely, as well as slowly to quickly.
 
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 72, 73, 74  Next